God has obviously "outed" him as gay... _________________A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools - Douglas Adams.

Sadly, he doesn't mention the really sensible, eminently doable and only worthwhile option - cutting consumption. But I suppose he can only squeeze so many controversial comments (only controversial to some) into one short interview._________________The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.

You can't cut consumption that would mean a drop in GDP. Eeeek!!!What politician could be expected to support that._________________If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money.

No, it's not news to many of us, John, but it is something that many people and most politicians are trying to forget so that they can avoid taking any action to reduce our carbon emissions. To try and jog our local politicians and people into some action I sent the following letter to our local paper and it was published last week. I had several favourable comments from local activists and await any comment in the paper.

I had to edit it down from the original of about 750 words as the paper really like letters to be about 300. I find that I can usually get away with 600 words!

Quote:

Before the recent election there were letters in the NWN deploring the economic prospects for the young in this country and asking why they should not have the same improving economic prospects that the older generation have enjoyed for all living memory. The answer to that question lies in the finite nature of the earth that we live in rather than the supposed infinitely resourced planet that our economists inhabit.

It has been calculated that if the whole world were to live to a European standard we would need three Earths to supply the resources or five if an American standard of living was achieved. On that basis alone the increasing standards of living that the third world aspire to require that we in the west accept a lot less in the future if we are to avoid war or the invasion of our continent that is currently gaining momentum in the Mediterranean.

You can add to this the problem of Climate Change. Most people seem to have accepted that the Paris Accord will fix the problems of Climate Change but, unfortunately, this is not so. It is what is politically and scientifically expedient, not what is scientifically required, to address the future of the environment that we have evolved in, and therefore also the future of the human race. It talks of keeping the temperature increase to 2 deg C or even 1.5. We have large scale melting of glaciers and ice sheets with the current 1 deg C rise in world temperatures so increasing the temperature further still will result in an increase in melting and consequent sea level rise.

James Hansen has said recently that the world faces a sea level rise of about seven metres by the end of the century. Besides wiping out some of the world's best food growing areas it will flood many of the world's greatest cities, including much of London, and take out the ports which support the global trade upon which the world's prosperity is based.

Many of our politicians believe that technology will save us but all our technology, along with all our economic growth, has required an increasing use of energy, the exhaust from which has caused the problem of Global Warming. Even if we could replace that fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, building most of that renewable energy technology would require fossil fuel energy. We get about 2% of our energy from renewable resources at the moment so the monetary and energy investment to replace current polluting technology will be enormous.

I am afraid that we should be honestly telling our younger generations than the period that we have lived through is as good as it gets and that the future will see us with much less. We will have to spend more of our time in growing our food and less twiddling our thumbs at a computer or mobile phone. We will have to wear winter clothes in the winter, even in the home, and summer clothes in the summer and there will be more of us sharing a home. We will eat much less meat, more vegetables and we won't be throwing half our food away.

The alternative will be for us to literally fight off the invading masses from the third world as they look to take what we won't give them. Even if we achieved that it would only give us a temporary reprieve as the sea level inexorably rises and the chaos of economic breakdown and mass population migration ensues.

I am afraid that someone has to inject some realism into the debate but please don't shoot the messenger.

The problem with predictions on sea levels is that the public sphere in the wider sense (including people who would vote for Trump and Brexit) will not really respond until sea levels are seen to be going up on an annual basis by something that leads to a conclusion of something over 5cm per year (which gives 5m rather than 7m in a century).

The problem with predictions on sea levels is that the public sphere in the wider sense (including people who would vote for Trump and Brexit) will not really respond until sea levels are seen to be going up on an annual basis by something that leads to a conclusion of something over 5cm per year (which gives 5m rather than 7m in a century)......

Given that a significant portion of the Brexit and Trump votes were cast by poor people, why do you suppose that poor people are also less likely to vote for green agenda polices than the better off who were also less likely to vote for Trump or Brexit?

Do you think its merely and only because they are stupid?

Last edited by Little John on Tue Jul 25, 2017 10:12 am; edited 4 times in total

No, it's not news to many of us, John, but it is something that many people and most politicians are trying to forget so that they can avoid taking any action to reduce our carbon emissions. To try and jog our local politicians and people into some action I sent the following letter to our local paper and it was published last week. I had several favourable comments from local activists and await any comment in the paper.

I had to edit it down from the original of about 750 words as the paper really like letters to be about 300. I find that I can usually get away with 600 words!

Quote:

Before the recent election there were letters in the NWN deploring the economic prospects for the young in this country and asking why they should not have the same improving economic prospects that the older generation have enjoyed for all living memory. The answer to that question lies in the finite nature of the earth that we live in rather than the supposed infinitely resourced planet that our economists inhabit.

It has been calculated that if the whole world were to live to a European standard we would need three Earths to supply the resources or five if an American standard of living was achieved. On that basis alone the increasing standards of living that the third world aspire to require that we in the west accept a lot less in the future if we are to avoid war or the invasion of our continent that is currently gaining momentum in the Mediterranean.

You can add to this the problem of Climate Change. Most people seem to have accepted that the Paris Accord will fix the problems of Climate Change but, unfortunately, this is not so. It is what is politically and scientifically expedient, not what is scientifically required, to address the future of the environment that we have evolved in, and therefore also the future of the human race. It talks of keeping the temperature increase to 2 deg C or even 1.5. We have large scale melting of glaciers and ice sheets with the current 1 deg C rise in world temperatures so increasing the temperature further still will result in an increase in melting and consequent sea level rise.

James Hansen has said recently that the world faces a sea level rise of about seven metres by the end of the century. Besides wiping out some of the world's best food growing areas it will flood many of the world's greatest cities, including much of London, and take out the ports which support the global trade upon which the world's prosperity is based.

Many of our politicians believe that technology will save us but all our technology, along with all our economic growth, has required an increasing use of energy, the exhaust from which has caused the problem of Global Warming. Even if we could replace that fossil fuel energy with renewable energy, building most of that renewable energy technology would require fossil fuel energy. We get about 2% of our energy from renewable resources at the moment so the monetary and energy investment to replace current polluting technology will be enormous.

I am afraid that we should be honestly telling our younger generations than the period that we have lived through is as good as it gets and that the future will see us with much less. We will have to spend more of our time in growing our food and less twiddling our thumbs at a computer or mobile phone. We will have to wear winter clothes in the winter, even in the home, and summer clothes in the summer and there will be more of us sharing a home. We will eat much less meat, more vegetables and we won't be throwing half our food away.

The alternative will be for us to literally fight off the invading masses from the third world as they look to take what we won't give them. Even if we achieved that it would only give us a temporary reprieve as the sea level inexorably rises and the chaos of economic breakdown and mass population migration ensues.

I am afraid that someone has to inject some realism into the debate but please don't shoot the messenger.

Good one k-l. I might steal some of it for letters over here.

Ireland has recently set up a citizens' forum, comprising 100 randomly-selected people from round the country. They have advisory power only.

Subjects are chosen by the government for the forum to discuss, aided by submissions.

The debate over access to abortion was given a lift when the forum voted almost overwhelmingly in favour of allowing abortions in any circumstances; whatever your views on this issue, the recommendation issued was a reflection of society as a whole. Cognitive dissonance abounds!

A simple, top-down, no-one can escape solution and, ultimately, the only system currently suggested that can make the requisite changes, barring some black swan event._________________The human appears to have no idea what its ideal diet should be; has self-inflicted diet-related diseases; causes extensive environmental destruction through basic food production & creates pathogenic infestations that widely infect its food supply.

The problem of mass migrations of humans across the planet is going to happen irrespective of whatever belt tightening happens over here, so deep and so baked into the cake is the crisis coming down the line.

So, I am afraid we don't get to avoid the hard moral choices that comes with that crisis. At some point, whatever else is true, either this part of the world will be overrun with inward migration. At which point, that migration will stop as a consequence of our part of the world becoming as wretched as the part of the world those migrants are fleeing from. Or, they will be killed before they get here on the high seas or at our shores.

It is not a question of whether this will happen. It is only a question of when.